I have search my memory and I have come to the conclusion that Lion for Lambs is the first Tom Cruise starring movie that has made me think – all thanks to Robert Redford who directed it.

But I must warn Cruise fans out there Lion for Lambs doesn’t have much of a story; no cat and mouse suspense; no death defying action; no sex. The film isn’t about making Tom Cruise looking cool. It’s a debate film, if that is the appropriate description; as all of the characters at one point or another have engaged in a debate with fellow characters. And the issue of the day is the War on Terror.

What mimics as a story are two underprivileged young men, who, to the surprise of many of their classmates sign up for an unpopular war. Yet even they as characters are not exempt from debate. They defended their point of view to their classmates and to their professor, Stephen Malley (Robert Redford).

I was grasping for an analogy and the best I can come up with is an editorial column. But these columns are often one sided regardless if its argued from all points of view; the publisher’s/paper’s point of view has to stand out. An editorial column brings arguments derived from issues of the day and afterwards the paper makes a case of their own.

Lions for Lambs is surprisingly fair to all sides; it is balanced. Now that’s not something I can say for the creations of anti bush filmmaker Michael Moore.

Arguments for the war can be seen in the scenes involving Senator Jasper Irving (Tom Cruise) and reporter Janine Roth (Meryl Streep). Sometimes the hawkish Irving seems right and sometimes the anti-war Roth gets the better of the argument. If Irving in the end looks like an ambitious presidential aspirant it doesn’t rob the impact of the characters arguments.

Professor Malley’s own “debating” scene is about the undecided which represented by his student. This is the debate, the part of the movie which is most relevant to everybody. It’s the one to watch.

The undecided student, or maybe disheartened is the more appropriate word, is really about the common man. Many are disheartened and yet many of them passionate, but instead of engagement they choose to stay out, be uninvolved, and all the while criticizing.

The films tagline gives the message in a nutshell: if you don't STAND for something, you might FALL for anything.

Acting wise nothing negative can be said of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. They were perfect. I liked Meryl Streep as a reporter, the way she wore her glasses, asked the questions, and played with her pen. Maybe the surprise here is Cruise. There is not much change in the way he acts, moves, or handles himself; but the role is just perfect for him.
Lions for Lambs is not a film I’d recommend for everybody especially at today’s movie prices. It’s the type film where you might get “nosebleeds” as my friend would describe it.

But if you’re not into the movies for fun then by all means watch it. It’s a thinking movie and the way that society is going, we really have much to think about.

The Kingdom is not a very good film in spite of being relevant with the times. It’s a donut because it started big and ended great, but it had no fulfilling content in between.

There is an historical recap at the opening credits where you’ll get some highlights encompassing almost a hundred years of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; from the colonial days to the crash landing planes of September 11.

There was a small portion in that intro about oil which got my interest. Tackling it would have given the film more personality in the sense many people are already alleging that American interests are not about peace and democracy in the Middle East but securing oil interests. Saudi is after all the leading oil producer in the world.

Issues of that nature, sadly, were not tackled. After the opening credits, history lesson, and a perfectly executed terrorist attack in the opening sequence the rest of the film is all about explosions, guns, and CSI-like investigations.

Jamie Foxx plays, Agent Ronald Fleury, the head of the FBI team sent over to Saudi to investigate an attack against US citizens. He’s a great actor with an Oscar statue to prove it. I liked him best in his role as a cab driver in Collateral. He and Tom Cruise had good chemistry as taxi driver and cold blooded assassin exchanging (or debating) views on life and morality.

There was a nice opportunity for a love-hate relationship in The Kingdom in Agent Fleury and Colonel Faris Al Ghazi (Ashraf Barhom). An FBI agent and a Saudi colonel; worlds apart; they could have done some meaningful passionate exchanges of concerning both cultures and yet there was none.

Chris Cooper (Agent Grant Sykes), Jennifer Garner (Agent Janet Mayes), and Jason Bateman (Adam Leavitt), round up the rest of the FBI team. I like Cooper and he was his usual best. Can’t say the same for the former Alias star; her performance was fine but the role itself lacked depth. If Alias fans are hoping for some kick-ass performance from their hero they will be disappointed because there just isn’t much of her.

Jason Bateman is just an odd man out for me. They were trying to have him as comic relief and his humor is just wrong in the situation they are in. Overall the collection of actors just didn’t blend as well as they should.

There is nothing spectacular, no suspenseful cat and mouse chase. When you finish watching this film you will get to the conclusion that ineptitude and perhaps cultural backwardness is the chief hurdle in the investigations; and it takes an ‘enlightened’, capable, FBI agent to truly get to the bottom of a terror attack. All Agent Fleury had to do was to give one honest statement to a Saudi Royal and that’s it. The investigation goes on high octane.

But if I were made to choose between the closing scene/statement and the entire film I would choose the ending. It’s a one liner said twice in the course of the film in whisper; only in the end was it disclosed. This one line was said in time of grief by both American and terrorist; it is a true sentiment by many people. We have much reason to worry.

“Don’t worry”, it goes, “we’re going to kill them all.”

Have you ever experienced something so bad that made you just want to cry out and ask why it had to be? Questions of that sort are usually asked to the One who started it all – whether He exists or not.

We search for His answers in everyday things sometimes ignoring the fact that we had answers all along. And, for those whose love is only met by silence there is only pain. But what if, just what if, the One we seek to blame (or thank) appears before you just like anybody.

Joan of Arcadia explores the idea of God talking back to a young girl named Joan Girardi (Amber Tamblyn). Now back in the day when Moses was alive, the pyramids were brand new, and the years were counted backwards, ‘men of god’ or prophets as they were popularly called were older and experienced men. With Joan the working relationship, if can call it that, was never smooth, especially at this age.

Joan is a teenager and a middle child in a family still reeling from tragedy. She is just trying to figure out her place in the world; a highschool student with a lackluster academic record and social status to match. Hardly the person who will think of the greater meaning of life, especially God.

Imagine asking a teenager dealing with teenage problems like pimples, boys, and a social life, doing all sorts of weird, irrelevant looking tasks. The scenes where God gives the ‘missions’ to Joan had a serious heartwarming air about it but also a bit of comedy. Being a teenager, Joan, almost always, complains yet she still does it. Like in most religions free will is the hallmark of the relationship but in spite of the apparent restrictions God seems to always know what buttons to push. Well even if he doesn’t push a button how can anyone refuse?

In one episode Joan was asked to make a boat; not a model but a real boat where one can ride without fear of sinking. Sounds stupid right? Well Joan never finished the boat but at the end of the episode, it was revealed that the boat was meant for her brother, who needed something to make him believe in himself after loosing use of his legs.

One of my favorite scenes in that episode happened in the beginning when after she was asked to make a boat Joan shouted, out of frustration, "why can't you ask me to get a boyfriend?...you're impossible..." Although given with a slightly higher voice the scene was delivered with respect, hilarious even. Joan was just being a human.

As an agnostic my stance on religion can be described as cold, but it surprises me that I can still love a show like Joan of Arcadia. It is well written. Every one, regardless of religious creed can enjoy watching it.

One of shows brighter points will have to be its theme song ‘One of Us’ because it sums up the entire emotion of the show.

Joan of Arcadia had a great ensemble of actors; they all gelled and played their role beautifully. And thought the show was cancelled it is still one of the best family oriented dramas to have ever come out in recent years.

But maybe what I really love about the show is what Joan has. Joan has a face-to-face guarantee that all the humiliations and pain in life is part of a big plan; that whatever the hardship everything will be ok.

We all seek that opportunity, I think, wether we’re doing good or bad, to have our questions asked and our piece said, face to face.

It would be nice to have that.

“We have enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.”
Jonathan Swift.

Orlando Bloom goes from Middle Earth to the Middle East in the period-piece Kingdom of Heaven. Set in the religion mad era of the Crusades, the Lord of the Rings heartthrob now plays a lost and tortured soul searching for salvation.

The story begins in France where Bloom plays Balian, a blacksmith and a widower fresh from loosing both wife and child. Like others beset with a tragedy, he thought himself to be cursed and far from the grace of God.

While still in sorrow over his family, he was met by a crusader named Godfrey, a lord and member of the King’s court in Jerusalem. Godfrey confesses that he is Balian’s father and goes on by asking the son to accompany him back to Jerusalem.

The grieving blacksmith was first hesitant in joining a father he never knew, but soon realizes that there is no point in remaining in France. All that he holds dear is dead. Not only that, he is drawn to Jerusalem like many others who are hoping to find God and redemption in what is said to be a kingdom of heaven.

Once in Jerusalem, Balian takes his fathers lesson to heart: be a good knight; be without fear in the face of your enemies; protect the helpless; and do no wrong. He is to serve the king first and the people, second.

A hard task in place that is far from heavenly. At this time Jerusalem is a drowning kingdom amidst a sea of Arabs lead by Saladin. Balian, along with Tiberias, Godfrey’s friend, are the dependable knight’s in court among fanatics and men blinded by their sense of entitlements. Only Balian stood tall in defense of the city against an army of 200,000 Arabs. Jerusalem was lost but he saved what was important, the people.

“Holiness is in right action, and courage on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves, and goodness. What god desires is here [points to head] and here [points to heart] and what you decide to do every day, you will be a good man - or not.” These were the words spoken to Balian when he was unable to find God and peace of mind in Jerusalem. In the end he proved it right.

Kingdom of Heaven is by no means historically accurate. It has been commented more than once that Hollywood creates its version of history into something more palatable and sexy on the big screen, with the American audience having the highest consideration. What really happened in those days you have to read on your own, as I did, well at least a few pages of articles.

Saladin, like in the film, was great general for the Arabs and was highly respected on both sides. Some have the point of view that Christians have a better respect for him than the Muslims. Jerusalem was indeed lost though I am not sure which crusade or war did it fall. The odds of holding the city were just insurmountable.
But most of all it is very true the barbarism chooses no religion, and neither does religion play a factor in doing the right thing. In Kingdom of Heaven the Templars were the most brutal, always with the insane line of “God wills it!” It is not so different from suicide bombers who cry out “God is great.”

My favorite line was made by the Hospitaller and it goes: “I put no stock in religion. By the word religion I have seen the lunacy of fanatics of every denomination be called the will of god.”

I like the film’s cinematography, location, musical score, and its costumes. It was very appropriate for that era. And a big applause also for the acting. Ghassan Massoud played Saladin beautifully. He looked every bit the part of the great Arab leader. Liam Neeson is another bright spot playing Balian’s father. The Irish actor is perfect in the mentor or teacher roles as seen in two other films: Star Wars Espisode I and Batman Begins.

Girls may kill me for this but the only dull spot in the acting department is Orlando Bloom. He seems lifeless when he acts. His voice is feels like it’s always in a monotone. No wonder he hasn’t gained much lift in his after having a movie like the Lord of the Rings.

Kingdom of Heaven is a good film to watch. It has enough action and respectable story to entertain. Furthermore, it has the ability to make people think of what happened then and what is happening now with Bush seemingly resurrecting the madness of the Crusades. “Holiness is in right action,” the movie says, and I fully agree. We should just try to get along.